Category Archives: muslim pakistani

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

Last Friday afternoon the story broke in the mainstream media that 20 more, as the BBC called them “Asians”, had been convicted of horrific offences of “child grooming” from the Huddersfield area. 
Most of the offences occurred during the period of Labour Government in the Labour controlled area of Kirklees.  These had been systematically covered up by Labour Councillors and MPs, social workers, police and all the usual suspects that we are all too familiar with from the Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester etc. “grooming gang” cases. 
Even now the BBC cannot bring themselves to admit that these men are of Pakistani heritage Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, or any other “Asians”. 

After the murder of the internationalist Labour MP, Jo Cox, by the deeply disturbed Thomas Mair (actually more as a product of the failure of “Care in the Community” than of political extremism), the English Democrats decided we would stand in the ensuing by-election.   
The Constituency was of course exactly in the area affected by this case.  The local media, the local BBC and all the local politicians were in the know about what had been going on for many years in Kirklees.  Nevertheless claimed that it was disgusting of anyone to stand in that Constituency against Labour!

So, as soon as we announced that we were going to stand, that Establishment bastion of Remain, the Electoral Commission, decided to remove without any consultation or prior notice, our registered “Description” “England worth fighting for!”  This was said to be offensive!   
What is truly offensive is the way that the Establishment had closed ranks to try to pretend that nothing untoward was going on in Kirklees and their claims that our standing was damaging “social cohesion” between the “local communities”. 

The media, particularly in the shape of Channel 4, tried to do a hatchet job on us.  They not only secretly filmed at our conference to try to get people to say things that they could use against us. Also they tried to create a situation where there would be a fight by getting a probably drunken Labour Councillor to attack our campaign stalls. 

I had taken, as it turned out, the very sensible precaution of making sure that our stalls were in the square just outside the Batley police station, so the whole thing was witnessed by the police.  They, very reluctantly, had to get involved to prevent the Labour Councillor from doing any more criminal damage.  Needless to say that they didn’t actually prosecute her, despite the fact that several of our people gave witness statements which, if the boot had been on the other foot, would certainly have led to prosecutions! 

Channel 4 were looking rather depressed at the failure of their wheeze, but they nevertheless showed their hatchet job which was broadcast just before the by-election. They broadcast a clip with the Councillor saying that we shouldn’t be standing but didn’t mention, of course, her appalling conduct!

Whilst this was all truly offensive, nothing compares with the betrayal of vulnerable white English girls and their families by Labour, by police and by local officials, by the media and by the British Political Establishment generally.   
That is something which should live in infamy for generations to come and which should motivate anyone who cares for England and the English people to campaign all the harder to at least remove all the guilty from any positions of authority or influence!

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs
On Friday, 25th May, I happened to tune into Tommy Robinson’s live feed on Facebook not long before he was arrested by seven (yes seven!) West Yorkshire Police under the dishonest claim that he was inciting a “Breach of the Peace”. 
From what I saw at the time and from what I have seen since I stand by my assertion that that claim was dishonest.  As so far as I can see there was no basis for saying that he was inciting a Breach of the Peace. 
In fact the police’s actions afterwards suggest that that was always a lie.  At the time all we heard was that within two hours of his arrest he had been sentenced to 13 months imprisonment and taken off to Hull Prison. 
All we knew about the reason as to why this has happened was that His Honour Judge Marson QC had made an Order forbidding press coverage on the basis that it might prejudice “THESE proceedings”.
It probably is that this Judge’s Leftist background has led him to be far harder on Tommy Robinson than he would have been on a mainstream Leftist, fellow traveller and journalist.  Given the inevitable as time goes on increasing preponderance of Leftists, multi-culturalists in the judiciary would now be no real prospects of running that aspect of the argument in court but the sentence is still a severe one and the courts are supposed to take account of a quick plea of guilty in discounting by a third the sentence that they would otherwise have imposed.  
The Judgment in effect is therefore saying that the Judge thought that 15 months would have been appropriate to add consecutively to the 3 months that were triggered by the plea of guilty.  That strikes me as a wholly unreasonable sentence which should be possible to reduce quite significantly on appeal if Tommy Robinson is minded to do so.  How publicity could be relevant to proceedings against Tommy Robinson or even Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as he is properly described in the heading of the Court Order was one of the mysteries of the situation. 
I like many others that saw what happened or heard about it and then watched were amazed, appalled and outraged at what had apparently happened in our country to Tommy who is after all an heroic figure! 
It seemed clear that the politically correct British State had in the words of one commentator “gone too far this time”. 
There have since been a series of protests, on the quite understandable basis from what we knew, that Tommy Robinson seemed to have been arrested and then sent down for 13 months without any proper due process, trial etc. 
Many generous offers of help were also being made, particularly by Ezra Levant offering help with Tommy’s legal fees and also Lord Pearson offering payment of his legal fees.  General Batton and Lord Pearson of UKIP even both went so far as to threaten to prosecute the current Home Secretary, Sajid Javid.  I found this somewhat odd as I cannot think there would be any prospect of getting a magistrate even to issue the summons to prosecute the Home Secretary over injuries sustained in a prison. Whilst pursuing one part of his ministerial responsibility, he does not have any direct operational involvement with them.  I can however understand that in the heat of anger at the moment them making threats which in the cool light of day now look implausible. 
Another implausible call was of course for Habeas Corpus and Common Law.  Under Common Law judges did have a very wide discretionary power to punish for contempt of court.  Habeas Corpus is the traditional order of the court whereby a Judge orders and the name comes from the Latin recital to the order to the person who has the body of the prisoner who is to be produced to the court.  In a situation where the court has ordered a person to be imprisoned that of course has no relevance.  It was an historical order principally against officers of the Crown or the King himself who had wrongly imprisoned somebody. 
Reasonably sizeable demonstrations have been held and various speakers, including both UKIP’s and For Britain’s Leadership made speeches about how outrageous and unconstitutional the decision to imprison Tommy Robinson has been.  I suspect they all now feel a bit embarrassed.  No doubt they were acting from the best motives, but the facts that have now come out have delivered them over for ridicule by our collective multi-culturalist opponents.
What has now come out is that there was already a restriction order on further publication of any details about the trials of 29 defendants in yet another horrific example Muslim/Pakistani heritage pimping child prostitute gangs.  The facts include the all too normal use of extortion, violence and drugs against their victims, together with huge criminal profits.  Such orders are made against the media and against all journalists.  It is because Tommy Robinson, for some time now, has been saying publically on his website, on his output and where relevant in court that he is a journalist that he was clearly caught by this Order. 
In the circumstances I think it likely that he was correctly advised, by his very experienced Counsel, Matthew Harding, from a legal point of view to plead guilty to the charge of breach of this court Order i.e. contempt of court.  That Court Order was made to try to ensure that these criminals could be fairly tried.  The consequence of it being impossible to fairly try them means that they might go free.  The Order against the media was therefore a sensible Order to make, provided of course that once the criminals were convicted that the media were not only free to report on it but actually did so. 
Of course part of the reason why we are all so suspicious about the “Fake News” from the mainstream media is that they frequently choose to make a big fuss about historic cases against old white men rather than to report the real crisis that is going on around us at the moment of these Muslim child rape gangs.  Our suspicion was further raised by the treatment of Tommy Robinson who has been the key torch bearer throwing light on this issue to the embarrassment of the British Political Establishment.
Once it is understood that Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court it becomes obvious that this would automatically trigger his suspended sentence for 3 months imprisonment to which he was sentenced in Canterbury Crown Court last year.  Therefore Tommy would be going to prison for at least that 3 months sentence.  I think it would also be inevitable that any Judge would then add to that sentence.
I do however think that an immediate actual custodial sentence of a further 10 months was a very stiff sentence and it is there that we and Tommy Robinson himself should perhaps be directing attention, since that sentence is of course appealable. 
There is also the disparity of treatment between Tommy Robinson and other reporters whereby he has been singled out for punishment when usually mainstream media reporters are not punished.  There is also the fact that he is completely outside the self-censoring system which revolves around the Defence and Security Media Advisory whereby the mainstream media decide what they are going to report and what they are going to censor in the interests of their globalists/internationalist, multi-culturalist owner’s agenda. 
I came across a very good article explaining this system which I reproduce below. 
The other point to bear in mind is of course that the Judge that decided to sentence Tommy Robinson for an additional 10 months over and above the 3 months that were triggered by his pleading guilty, is His Honour Judge Geoffrey Marson QC who was one of the first products of the change to the judicial appointments under Tony Blair whereby a Judicial Appointments Commission was set up with rules, which Tony Blair’s friend, Lord Irvine, said would ensure that “nobody with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary. 
Judge Marson was appointed by Tony Blair’s personal friend and former flatmate, Charlie Faulkner, who, as Lord Chancellor presided over the dismantlement of the ancient and traditional English office of Lord Chancellor.  Faulkner replaced it with the EUish institution of a “Ministry of Justice” which has since presided over the virtual implosion of the English Court system.  Judge Marson is I suspect a typical example of such appointment as his own old chambers proudly boasts of being multi-culturalist, Park Square Barristers of 6 Park Square East, Leeds, LS1 2LW say that they are “Progressive – … we have a strong balance of women and BME members.”  Here is a link to their website >>> https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/about/
I mentioned above the control centre of Establishment spin the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee.  Here is that interesting article I mentioned:-

“D-Notices, State Censorship And The Cynical Collusion of Mainstream Media

By TruePublica: If you’ve been following the Skripal/Novichok/Chemical weapons/Syria drama unfold through TruePublica you’ll be up to date on most, if not all, the relevant information there is to know.
On several occasions, we have published news relating to the D-Notices sent out by the state to censor the mainstream media in both print and broadcast to ensure that their version of the story, one filled full of holes, didn’t go, well, mainstream.
One question raised a few times by our readers was, who is it actually decides when to issue a D-Notice and who sits on its committee.
Here is the explainer and an interesting one it is too.
Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports – Essential Weekend Reading – Safe Subscribe
Subscribe!
A DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) — formerly a DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice), and before that called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for “reasons of national security.”
In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices were only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are today slavishly complied with by the media.
In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged; and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices (Defence Advisory Notices).
One of the recommendations resulting from the 2015 review of the DA-notice system, included the renaming of the system to the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee.  In 2017, the notices were reworded and then reorganized into the following categories:
  • DSMA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities
  • DSMA-Notice 02: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon Systems and Equipment
  • DSMA-Notice 03: Military Counter-Terrorist Forces, Special Forces and Intelligence Agency Operations, Activities and Communication Methods and Techniques
  • DSMA-Notice 04: Physical Property and Assets
  • DSMA-Notice 05: Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions
From here, it gets interesting because in 2015 the ‘committee’ from all accounts seemed to change shape, which beforehand had been made up of state officials, and some elements of the press, particularly in times of real national security such as the world wars. Nowadays it is made up of a few state officials and mostly – the mainstream media.
There are 15 senior media people who sit on this censorship committee. As well as the BBC, ITV, ITN and Murdoch’s Sky News, representing broadcasters, there are a variety of representatives from the broadsheet and tabloid press, regional and Scottish newspapers and magazines and publishing – including two News UK and Harper Collins, (both owned by Murdoch) as well as Trinity Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Guardian.
On the government side of the committee are the chair from the MoD and four intelligence connected representatives from the MoD (Director General Security Policy), Foreign Office (Director for National Security), Home Office (unspecified post) and Cabinet Office (Deputy National Security Adviser for Security, Intelligence, and Resilience).
The DSMA committee itself obviously likes to project the view that it is a rather dull and uninteresting meeting of minds and that there’s nothing going on to report. But these meetings are to discuss and agree what can and cannot be printed or broadcast in the mainstream media. Then, instead of going back to their respective places of work and simply passing on the message – the state then issues notices to the same people who just agreed not to print the scandals the government just asked them not to print in the first place.
SpinWatch makes an interesting point by highlighting exactly how much the mainstream media collude directly with government on controlling the output.
“as a former vice chair of the committee (a journalist) put it, ‘is emphatically not censorship… but voluntary, responsible media restraint’. Then working at Sky News, that vice chair, Simon Bucks, is now CEO at the Services Sound and Vision Corporation, the broadcasting service which says it is ‘championing the Armed Forces’. Bucks also wrote that the DSMA committee is ‘the most mythologised and misunderstood institution in British media… “Slapping a D-notice” on something the establishment wanted suppressed has been the stuff of thrillers, spy stories and conspiracy theories for more than a century”.
The reader should have gathered from that statement alone, that indeed, slapping a D-Notice on the media is not the stuff of conspiracy theories otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. The conspiracy is that that the mainstream media stand accused of colluding in important cover-ups with and for the state. That is not a theory – that is a fact.
The Labour party is currently attacking freedom of speech and the free press, if there was indeed one to speak of, with a Bill tabled by deputy Labour leader Tom Watson (known as Labour’s ‘bully boy’) this week. This Bill was described by the Financial Times thus: “it would force our hand and chill freedom of expression in this country. Investigative journalism – such as the FT’s expose of The Presidents Club this year – could well become too risky given the potential costs.” It would be handing rich individuals a licence to harass the press, free of charge.”
Thankfully this draconian measure failed.
No doubt being caught up in the expenses scandal that the Telegraph printed didn’t exactly help with Mr Watson’s general view that Britain should benefit from a free press. His proposal came a couple of days after the World Press Freedom report showing Britain is now languishing nicely in 40th place in a group of other countries who also despise free speech – by those who try to hold power to account.
Here is a link to the original article>>> http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/d-notices-state-censorship-and-the-cynical-collusion-of-mainstream-media/ … 
Here are the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee’s Media Members:-
Name:
Organisation:
Nominated By…
John Battle
Head of Compliance
Independent Television News  
ITN
Paul Johnson
Deputy Editor
Guardian News and Media 
NPA
Joe Fay
Group Editor
The Register
Charles Garside
Assistant Editor
Daily Mail
NPA
James Green
Director
IHS – Jane’s News & Analysis  
PPA
David Higgerson
Digital Publishing Director
Trinity Mirror Regionals 
NS
Michael Jermey
Director of News, Current Affairs and Sport
ITV  
ITV
David Jordan
Director of Editorial Policy and Standards
BBC  
BBC
James MacManus
Executive Director
News UK
NPA
John McLellan
Scottish Newspaper Society
SNS
Charles Redmayne
Chief Executive Officer
Harper Collins UK
(B)PA
Ian Murray
Executive Director
Society of Editors
SoE
Sarah Whitehead
Head of Home News & Deputy Head of News Gathering
Sky News
BSkyB
Laura Adams
Editorial Director, Archant
NMA

Owen Meredith

Head of Public Affairs

PPA
Here is a link to their website>>> http://www.dsma.uk/committee/index.htm
There was also some interesting fall-out for the multi-culturalist British Political Establishment which I think was able to see that large numbers of traditionally minded patriots are now absolutely fed-up with the way things are going and are close to the point where there could be widespread civil disorder.  Whether they take any notice of that information we will see shortly.   So far it looks to me as if the official reaction is likely to be to try to clamp down still further which I suspect will be like sealing the lid on a pressure cooker! 

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?


On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-

Jeremy Corbyn:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“No she resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack or did she resign”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned”.

BBC interviewer:-

“So you did not sack her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“Well she resigned so that is the question.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”


(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame ‘entire community’ for abuse – BBC News).

This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked. 

The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.

The second deception in the interview was to claim:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.

What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.

Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!

Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.

The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is. 

But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that. 

So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?

What do you think?

Independent Press Standards Organisation and the Rotherham Advert


Following my correspondence with the Rotherham Advertiser I thought that I ought to see if the new Independent Press Standards Organisation would be any improvement on the Press Complaints Commission. Here is the correspondence. What do you think?

Letter dated 5.2.15

Sir Alan Moses

Independent Press Standards Organisation

Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Dear Sir

Re: Complaint against Rotherham Advertiser – Bias racial prejudice and inaccuracy

I recently tried to place an advertisement with the Rotherham Advertiser. There was then email correspondence from which it became clear that the “Editor” had an inappropriate attitude towards any matter arising out of the Jay Report. I would remind you that this is the report which was highly critical of Rotherham Council and the South Yorkshire Police. It also detailed extremely serious allegations of child gang rape and prostitution against by various Muslim/Pakistani gangs in Rotherham. Crimes in which the authorities had not only failed to properly investigate but had been complicit in at the very least the sense of covering up what was going on. Moreover instead of doing their duty they had persecuted anyone who tried to raise the subject.

I enclose the email correspondence and an article from the Daily Telegraph which I think is appropriate to consider and also refer to the recent Casey report on Rotherham.

I suspect that such a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy could not have been conducted without local journalists being aware of it. It would appear from the correspondence that the Editor of the Rotherham Advertiser is not only unwilling to mention the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators, but even the likely culpability of Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police. In the circumstances I wish to make a complaint of bias and racial prejudice against the Rotherham Advertiser.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

Enc.

——————————————————————————

From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 11/02/2015 10:18:03 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Your complaint is currently being assessed, and we will be in touch with you again shortly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.

Should IPSO decide that your complaint falls outside of our remit, or does not raise a possible breach of the Code, we will write to you to explain why and send a copy of our letter to the publication.

Alternatively, if we decide that the concerns you have raised fall within our remit and raise a possible breach of the Code, and you have not previously exhausted the publication’s internal complaints procedures, a copy of your complaint and any other correspondence you have sent to us, including contact information, will be sent to the publication to provide it with the opportunity to resolve the matter directly with you.

A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is administered by IPSO, can be found at https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html.

Please note, in addition, the following information about our confidentiality and data protection procedures:

Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation requires good faith on both sides. In order for us to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or newspaper/magazine, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation – most notably correspondence – without the consent of the other party. Publication, without consent, may affect our ability to continue to deal with a complaint or may be considered when we reach a decision as to whether the Code has been breached. Material provided by both complainants and publications during an investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint to us. This will not generally prohibit a publication from publishing details of any ruling.

Data protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided for the purposes of dealing with your complaint. You also consent to the publication of any decision in relation to the complaint, but may withdraw consent in writing.

Further information about complaining to IPSO, including a summary of the complaints procedure, can be found at: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/makeacomplaint.html.

With best wishes,

Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation

——————————————————————————-

From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 11/02/2015 16:58:12 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

I write further to our earlier email.

You have contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the requirements set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code.

It appears that the concerns you have raised do not relate to the editorial content of a newspaper or magazine, and it does not therefore appear that we will be able to assist you further.

If you do wish to make a complaint about editorial content, we would be grateful if you could provide a copy of any article about which you wish to complain, and explain how you consider the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached (https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html).

If we do not hear from you in seven days, we will assume you do not want to pursue a complaint through IPSO.

With best wishes

Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation

——————————————————————————–

From: RobinTilbrook
To: mel.huggett
Sent: 12/02/2015 15:37:56 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mrs Huggett

Thank you for your email of the 11th.

It is concerning that the Independent Press Standards Organisation does not think that the vetting of advertisement content by the Editor is “editorial content”. Clearly the Editor has decided on the content of my advertisement and by any normal attribution of those words an Editor having a role in the decision as to content is encompassed by complaints relating to editorial content. I would like to see any legal opinion you may have to the contrary.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

—————————————————————————

From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 17/02/2015 15:35:18 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for your email.

Disagreements about the text of advertisements do not amount to concerns about editorial content; therefore your concerns fall outside IPSO’s remit, and I am afraid that we will be unable to assist you further.

IPSO’s Regulations, which define its remit, are available in full on our website, at the following link: https://www.ipso.co.uk/assets/1/REGULATIONS__PDF_.PDF

Best wishes

Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation

———————————————————————–

From: RobinTilbrook
To: mel.huggett
Sent: 18/02/2015 09:41:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

So Newspapers are allowed to discriminate about adverts and that is Okay with your organisation?

——————————————————————————-

From: simon.yip
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 19/02/2015 12:03:39 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your email to my colleague, Mel Huggett.

As we previously explained, advertisements do not fall within IPSO’s remit.

Best wishes

Simon Yip

Complaints Coordinator

——————————————————————-

From: RobinTilbrook
To: simon.yip
Sent: 24/02/2015 09:22:37 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation – Our reference 00654-15

Dear Mr Yip

Thank you for your email.

Please note that the Editor’s approach to my advert is, I believe, part of and indicative of his whole discriminatory approach to the reporting of the extremely serious child rape crimes that were going on in Rotherham and about which the whole local establishment closed ranks and refused to report or even acknowledge. That is the reason that I think that you should consider this an editorial matter.

I respectfully suggest that this is also something of a test case for the credibility of your organisation.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

Rotherham – The creaking British Establishment shuffles into action 15 years late


Here is our PRESS RELEASE

Rotherham – The creaking British Establishment shuffles into action 15 years late


In Rotherham and many other towns and cities across England it appears that Labour’s “one party state” administrations have covered up a widespread problem of predominantly Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs being allowed to operate with impunity. 

Whenever anyone has sought to challenge this, the very authorities who are paid to act turned a blind eye. They not only refused to help but bullied and discriminated against the very people they were paid to help. This was done for reasons of political correctness. 

When the Creasy report was published on the 4th we saw from the BBC the same mentality displayed in their inadequate reporting of the issue. They tried to make out that there is no element of race or religion in the matrix of either these crimes or the widespread cover-up. This is an official cover-up which may well amount to offences of a “conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”.

The English Democrats demand not only that every member of the child rape gangs be prosecuted, but also that every client of theirs be prosecuted too. Those unfortunate girls were widely prostituted and trafficked so that the gangs could make huge profits (an estimated £200,000 per girl per year). 

We further demand that all those guilty of these crimes be, wherever legally possible, deported after serving lengthy jail sentences.

There should also be an enquiry in the case of each perpetrator as to whether the members of their family have a legally enforceable right to remain in this country. If not they should be deported too.

So far as the Police Officers, Labour Councillors and Labour supporting Council officials, social workers and care workers are concerned, all should be barred from holding any offices of public responsibility and wherever possible they should be prosecuted.

We also demand extra Legal Aid funding should be granted to enable every victim to sue every perpetrator and every conspirator and the guilty authorities to extract full compensation for the horror of their experience.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, who is a Solicitor, said:- “The victims of these child rape gangs may be entitled to compensation of £50,000 for each and every rape. For those victims who endured hundreds of rapes, potential compensation may well run into millions of pounds. The scandalously inadequate British Establishment owes these victims justice and the funding of their quests for full compensation.”

He continued:- “This scandal, running to perhaps over a hundred thousand cases, which reached up into the highest levels of the Labour Government, is one of the worst scandals in the whole of the developed world.”

He added:- “Journalists who knew what was going on and who were involved in covering up are also complicit in these crimes and should be debarred from journalism”.

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

The victims of Rotherham’s Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs to sue?

The victims of Rotherham’s Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs to sue?

You may have seen in a previous Blog article what the English Democrats have tried to do politically in South Yorkshire as a result of the Pakistani/Muslim child rape gang scandal. (Click here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lessons-of-south-yorkshire-by.html

On reflection however I thought that, as a lawyer, there may well also be something more that I could do. Something which might even bring some much needed justice for the victims and against the guilty.

I therefore thought to put in a provocative advertisement proposal to South Yorkshire’s media!

You might think (but I couldn’t possibly comment!) that local journalists would be likely to have heard about what was going on. Yet the startling fact is that, with a very few honourable exceptions, there was extraordinary little reporting of these appalling crimes and the scandal of the authorities’ complicity.

In these circumstances I thought the exchange below might well be of interest as it does give an insight into the mind-set of a key local journalist; that is the Editor of the Rotherham Advertiser.

Below is the correspondence. See what you think.

From:RobinTilbrook
Sent: 08 January 2015 17:36
To: Advertising Department at Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: Placement of Advert

Dear Sir

Re: Placement of Advert

I may wish to place an advertisement with your newspaper. Please could you let me know how much this would cost?

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you may well be in a position to sue, not only the gang members but also all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This could amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

In a message dated 09/01/2015 14:34:51 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser writes:

Hi Robin,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding advertising in the Rotherham Advertiser. The text you have listed below would fit into a 7 x 2 box, or a 5 x 3 box, the cost of the 7 x 2 in the general run of paper would be £93.94 plus VAT, the 5 x 3 would be £100.65 plus VAT.

There are many other sizes available smaller and larger, however the 7 x 2 is the smallest that this amount of words would fit into and still have room to make the setting stand out. If you would like more information then please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Many thanks,

T.M.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 09 January 2015 17:17
To: Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: FW: Placement of Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am probably interested in placing this advert for £93.94 plus VAT. What more do you need from me?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 12/01/2015 09:15:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: FW: Placement of Advert

Hi Robin,

Because you have not used us before we do not have a credit account set up for you so I would need prepayment for the advert. I can email a proforma invoice and would need you to pay on a card or by bacs. Let me know how you would like to pay and I will email the invoice and details on how to pay. The deadline for this week’s paper is 3pm Wednesday.

Kindest regards, T.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 12 January 2015
To: Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: FW: Placement of Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. Yes if you could send me the invoice that would be fine. However before you do so please could you check with your Editor that the paper will run it as it is a bit controversial?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s

———————————————————————————

From: T.M.
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:19
To: A.M. Editor
Subject: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi A,

Can you check that we are OK to run this advert and let me know as I need to book and take payment.

Thanks, T

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you may well be in a position to sue, not only the gang members but also all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This could amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

In a message dated 12/01/2015 13:39:31 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk writes:

HI Robin,

Our editor has made some changes would the copy below be Ok with you? Let me know.

T.

From: A.M. Editor
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:38
To: T.M.
Subject: RE: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi T,

Maybe something like the below?

A.

If you are a victim of child sexual abuse or exploitation you could be in a position to sue the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

From: robintilbrook

Sent: 12 January 2015

To: TM

Dear T

The revised advertisement is good, but the purpose of my advertisement is to reach those who are victims of South Yorkshire’s Muslim/Pakistani child rape gangs not other types of cases so I would prefer:-

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue, the gang members and all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This would amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

In a message dated 13/01/2015 13:27:01 GMT Standard

Time, Rotherhamadvertisor writes:

HI Robin,

Please see below from my editor. Let me know if this is acceptable.

Many thanks, T

From: A.M. Editor
Sent: 13 January 2015 13:01
To: T.M>
Subject: RE: Grooming Gangs Advert

Hi T,

I’m uncomfortable about saying it would amount to tens of thousands of pounds as it might not. Equally, I don’t think we can name the council or the police. We are probably okay saying “grooming gangs” if that’s the bit he wants in to differentiate between those victims and the victims of abuse from, say, a family member.

Thanks,

A

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue

the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 13 January 2015 18:54
To: rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Subject: Re: FW: Grooming Gangs Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am a bit puzzled by your Editor’s comment about the amount as this is to be stated in my advert and is not something that he is expected to verify.

I am a Civil Litigation specialist and can specifically confirm that I expect that every finding of Rape would probably attract an award in excess of £50,000. So for one of those girls whose plight was reported on in the Jay Report who has been raped hundreds of times the damages may well exceed £1million.

So far as mentioning the Council and the Police, this is also a basic litigation position. Of course we would sue them whereever sufficient grounds exist as they probably will for the Council in every case where the child was in Care. Where the police were involved and failed in their duty to act, the same applies.

So yes given the significant sums involved I do want the Council and the Police mentioned. I am happy to keep it generic but of course I actually mean Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police. I would add I shall also be carefully considering whether individual Councillors and Council officials are worth ‘powder and shot’!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 14/01/2015 09:31:43 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: FW: Grooming Gangs Advert

HI Robin,

I don’t think he meant that he would need to verify the amount it was more a case of mentioning large sums that may not be an achievable amount.

However if you are happy to go with the last version then the deadline is 3pm today to get into Friday’s Advertiser. Let me know.

Kind regards, T.

From: T.M. Rotherham Advertiser
Sent: 14 January 2015 10:22
To: A.M. Editor
Subject: FW: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi A

He wants to use this one is this OK?

Let me know. T.

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue, the gang members and all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This would amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.




 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 14/01/2015 10:59:06 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi Robin,

I am sorry my editor is still unhappy with the phrasing, he has suggested the text below. As you can see from his email he is unhappy with naming the authorities and promising amounts that at this stage cannot be guaranteed.

Let me know what you think.

Kind regards

From: RobinTilbrook

Sent : 14 January 2015

To: Rotherhamadvertiser

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am surprised by your Editor’s comments. We do not need there to have been any arrests for the victim to be able to sue. It is simply a legal fact that these types of cases will attract damages of tens of thousands of pounds. The relevant authorities are the Council and the police so why should I pussyfoot about?

It is very strange that your Editor has made his joke about my sentiments. This is one of the most appalling scandals ever and yet he is concerned about mere nuance!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

From: A.M.
Sent: 14 January 2015 10:42
To: T.M.
Subject: RE: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi T.

He can’t say gang members as there haven’t been arrests, he can’t say tens of thousands of pounds and he needs to say relevant authorities rather than council or police.

The whole sentiment behind the advert and the way he’s phrasing things comes across as cheap and nasty.

I don’t think he can say much more than the below:

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

In a message dated 14/01/2015 15:08:31 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser writes:

Hi Robin,

Sorry to hassle you but we are on deadline now for this week’s paper so if you do want to go ahead I would need to know within the next half hour.

Kind regards,

T.

To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 22/01/2015 15:35:56 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: Deadline

Hi Robin,

The editor is not happy for the authorities to be named, so you could put the relevant authorities but not Council or Police. The amount that they could get you said would be tens of thousands but you would have to put could be not would be as there are no guarantees. He is also not willing to print anything that points to any specific cultural group.

If you can word the advert around this then we would be happy to print it. Let me know if you do want to go ahead but I will have to run it by him again once the wording is submitted.

Kind regards,

T.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 22 January 2015 15:14
To: rotherhamadvertiser
Subject: Re: Deadline

Dear T

I am still interested in placing an advertisement in the Rotherham Advertiser, but of course it does have to be wording that is useful and meaningful to me as an advertiser. Please could you confirm with your Editor what the position is?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

——————————————————————-

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 28 January 2015 09:22
To: T M
Subject: Re: Deadline

Dear T

Thank you for your email which I am surprised and puzzled at. Please remind your Editor that I have not asked to specifically identify Rotherham Council or the South Yorkshire Police – I have said the “Council” and the “Police”.

So far as ethnic/religious group is concerned, could you please remind your Editor that Professor Jay’s report was very clear that the perpetrators, with only one exception, were all Pakistani Muslims. The only exception was very much the “exception that proves the rule” as it was an Afghan Muslim of the same tribal group as most of the other perpetrators, i.e. Pathan/Pashtun. It would therefore in fact be wholly appropriate for my advert to be far more ethnic/religion specific than I have asked for.

So far as the money is concerned I actually anticipate, given the hundreds of rapes that many of these girls endured, that the money at stake may not merely amount to tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, but run into figures well above a million.

In the light of these comments I would request your Editor to reconsider his position on this advert.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

_____________________________________________

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
CC: J.R.@rotherhamadvertiser
Sent: 28/01/2015 11:48:51 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: Deadline

Hi Robin,

I passed your email to my editor who discussed it with our MD and they are still unwilling to run the advert with the details you mention. The fact that you are only targeting your advert at people suffering abuse at the hands of certain ethnic groups, all victims of abuse deserve compensation whomever was the cause. Also they have reservations about running it as there have still been no arrests made for these acts of abuse.

As a sales person I am sorry to turn down the revenue but my hands are tied.

Kind regards, T

————————————————————————

Sent to Rotherham Advertiser 28.1.15

From : Robin Tilbrook

Dear Tina

Your reply is amazing and concerning. My proposed advertisement actually does not identify any “ethnic groups”. This is despite, as I have said, the fact that it could properly do so, given the clarity and strength of the evidence in the Jay Report.

Your Editor’s reaction suggests that the Rotherham Advertiser may have been complicit in the cover-up of the activities of Muslim/Pakistani child rape gangs prostituting under-age girls in Rotherham by failing to properly and truthfully cover the extent of the criminality involved. How does your Editor answer to this serious charge?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

In a message dated 28/01/2015 16:43:48 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk writes:

Hi Robin,

Again I have passed your comments to the Editor and forward any reply.

Kind regards, T

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Sent: 28/01/2015 17:08:11 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Deadline

Thank you T.

Robin

From: A.M.@rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
To: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 29/01/2015 16:16:24 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Are you really a solicitor?

Robin,

I would expect a solicitor to at least know that what you state below is an accusation (a pretty silly one at that) rather than a charge. A charge is made when police have enough information to make one (at least that’s the idea).

Your advert comes across as a crass and desperate attempt to profit from the misfortunes of others in a town hundreds of miles away from where you actually operate. Is local business so bad? Also, it gives what is likely to be false hope to most would-be claimants.

A

————————————————————————————————————————————-

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: A.M. @rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Sent: 30/01/2015 20:30:38 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Are you really a solicitor?

Dear A

Thank you for your email. The words “charge” and accusation” mean very much the same thing.

I notice that your response has been the classic diversion strategem rather than answering the question. Use of this usually implies guilt. If I were cross examining you in court, I would probably leave it at that and invite the court to draw its own conclusions from your evasion when the question had been put to you.

Nevertheless I shall ask again are you one of those who is guilty of not reporting what you know and so helping the cover up? Viz: One that is part of the conspiracy of silence? Was this done for the politically correct appeasement of “community relations”?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

THE LESSONS OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE BY-ELECTION FOR POLICE COMMISSIONER


THE LESSONS OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE BY-ELECTION FOR POLICE COMMISSIONER

 

The fact that is strangest to those of us that have an idealist hope that representative democracy can be a force for good is that over 85.12% of those registered on the electoral roll in South Yorkshire could not be bothered to get off their backsides to vote.  This is whilst they were living in the midst of probably the worst scandal in the whole of the Western world.  They could hardly fail to have been fully aware of it and of much of its ramifications and their idleness puts them as being somewhat complicit in the scandal.  Can it be imagined that if significant numbers had taken to the streets to object over the last 15 years, that even the conspirators at the heart of South Yorkshire Labour wouldn’t have re-thought their approach?

The extent of the scandal is this, for many years now isolated voices have been pointing out that there is a widespread problem of Pakistani/Muslim men sexually predating upon very young English girls.  Although it is now clear that many people within the upper reaches of Labour and, no doubt, of the local media were well aware of this happening.  Not only did they not do anything to prevent it, but they actively demonised anyone who raised it.

This case must be the most appalling example of institutionalised racism and bigotry that anyone could imagine taking place in England.  Given the current furore over Jimmy Saville (and for that matter Ched Evans, the Sheffield footballer, who appears to have taken advantage of a drunken, but at least adult girl), who can doubt the seriousness of what is now officially admitted to be, in Rotherham alone, at least 1,400 children raped, trafficked, abused and, no doubt, at least similar numbers in many other towns across England.

For example, Manchester is beginning to look like a place where Labour behaved in the same way, where Labour government officials, social workers and the police and local media all behaved in the same way.  In Manchester the numbers of girls may exceed 10,000.

It would appear that across England that the scandal may well encompass over 100,000 girls, most of whom were supposedly in local government “Care”, very often having been taken away from feckless parents to be put in a situation which turned out to be far worse.

The extent of the scandal is not just those local officials, police and local politicians who were aware of it and did nothing, or actively colluded in covering it up, but the scandal went as far into the heart of the Labour Government as the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and was certainly known about by the Labour MPs of the various towns involved, as is clear from the Yorkshire Post article below.

Yet in the midst of this utterly appalling scandal, that any decent human being should be up in arms about, this is the very context in which 849,654 adult citizens living in South Yorkshire couldn’t be bothered to vote.  This figure does not even take account of up to 25% of those eligible to vote who care so little about the future of our country that they are not even on the electoral roll.  It is not as if there was no choice given to those people to vote against the corrupt Labour establishment.  No our candidate, David Allen, had come second last time.  We delivered a hard-hitting leaflet, which I show below, and there was a reasonable amount of media coverage and reporting of what was going on.

Why then was it that only 8,583 people voted for the only candidate genuinely committed to a root and branch tackling of this appalling problem?

Well one answer of course is the paedophile vote.  Labour scraped back in again with mostly postal voters (somewhere in the order of 80% of their vote was postal votes), and they got 74,060 votes.  Those voters would have been the paedophiles themselves, their friends and family and all those that had been involved in the cover-up and institutionalised neglect of their duty to these girls.  There were also, no doubt, some un-thinking Labour Party supporters.  The Liberal Democrats did not stand and that of course helped Labour, as their standing would have split the votes of unthinking Leftists.

Then there is also the fundamental lack of State support for these elections.  When Police Commissioner elections were being introduced by the then Police Commissioner, the aptly named Nick Herbert, I, and many others, lobbied him to have mayoral style booklets delivered to every elector, which would not only explain the role of the Police Commissioner, but also the voting system and every candidate would have an opportunity to put their electoral address into the leaflet.

The Conservative Minister’s calculation was they did not need the booklet as much as the other parties because they have got the most money and therefore could afford to pay for leafleting, but also there is the usual Conservative Party ‘bean counter’ mentality of keeping the costs down, even where that seriously undermines the purpose for which the money has been spent.

Elections are always quite expensive, not least because the returning officers send a notice of the election card to every elector.

All too typically for the British State the card that is sent has very little of importance or use on it and sending it is nothing more than a ‘tick box’ bureaucratic exercise.  Whereas if that note was replaced with a Mayoral style booklet we would have a realistic chance of getting some better involvement from the electors.  But no, Nick Herbert absolutely refused to support these elections in a way that would have made it likely that this ostensibly commendable reform would succeed.

Given the size of the electorate at 1,000,015 and the distances to be covered over the whole of South Yorkshire, comprising some 14 Westminster parliamentary constituencies, and that there is no support in making contact with the electorate for any of the candidates, it is obvious that the amount of money spent on the campaign is likely to make all the difference.

Unfortunately, but inevitably, the English Democrats had the smallest war chest for fighting these elections.  We had a well-designed, hard-hitting leaflet.  We did our best to raise the issue on social media, but in the end the amount of money spent was inevitably going to tell.

 
Labour had not only invested time and effort in the past in getting their supporters on the postal voting system, but also had relatively deep pockets and an urgent need to try to maintain their position in order to close off the prospect of senior members of the Labour Party being arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and various other conspiracy charges arising out of their disgraceful behaviour.

The Tories were there in their role of trying to keep the Punch & Judy shows going between Labour and the Conservatives and splitting any non-establishment opposition vote and got 18,536 votes.

UKIP stood, despite being a party that is opposed to the concept of Police Commissioners, a bizarre position for a party claiming to be in favour of democracy.  They put up a former South Yorkshire Police Inspector, who, even if he wasn’t personally involved in the scandal, must have known about it.  He was supposedly in “Community Policing” and engaging in buttering up the Imams in the various mosques of South Yorkshire.  He would have a vested interest in protecting his friends and former colleagues who are guilty.

However when it came down to money it has been stated that by senior people within UKIP that they spent over £150,000 on the election.  I have also heard others say that they spent up to £250,000 on the election.  In either case they spent at least 15 times as much money on this election as we did and still got nowhere near winning it.  Their vote was 46,883.  So UKIP may have spent over £5 per vote.

It was also interesting that the English Democrats counting agents at the various counts reported that about 40% of all the Second Preference votes were English Democrats, so it sounds as if, even if Labour had not succeeded in getting over the 50% mark, that UKIP would not have succeeded in winning the seat.

The lessons therefore of this election are that it is not enough to have the best policies, or the best candidate, or the best leaflet, or even the best social media campaign, what is required to win this was large numbers of potential supporters signed up to vote on the postal vote and also much more money.

In the absence of either of these two key resources, the English Democrats nevertheless did quite well to get 8,500 votes and to retain our deposit.  We also got significant additional publicity and were treated with respect by the media as a serious political party with serious political aims and a serious and sensible candidate.

Well done David Allen and the South Yorkshire English Democrats who made it all possible!

Here is the Yorkshire Post article I mentioned:-

 

Exclusive: MP and Home Office failed to act on Rotherham grooming 11 years ago

by Adrian Pearson, the Yorkshire Post’s Political Editor

ROTHERHAM’s horrific abuse concerns were raised with the Home Office and the town’s MP but never acted on, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

Abuse campaigners have revealed how in 2003 they met with a senior Home Office representative to say the Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police could not be trusted and called for urgent Government action.

And in 2009 they wrote to Denis MacShane with a five page letter detailing abuse concerns made by a Rotherham family but received no response.

Mr MacShane has said he was never approached by constituents raising abuse concerns, and that was why he did not speak on the issue of Rotherham-specific abuse in the House of Commons.

The former MP said he has no knowledge of the letter, and that as it was not directly addressed to him but to a larger group he might not necessarily have had to act on it.

The letter was sent by charity Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation, then known as CROP, who said its own researcher had to stop work because of fears a serving police officer was passing information on to abusers.

Evidence of the 2009 letter, released by the influential Home Affairs Select Committee, comes as it emerges former Rotherham Council staff face criminal charges for misconduct in public office.

South Yorkshire Police chief constable David Crompton revealed he asked the National Crime Agency to look at council failings and those of his own force as part of its investigation into how abuse claims were handled.

The abuse charity PACE said it still could not understand why when the Home Office was informed of widespread abuse, incompetence or worse in public office and the possibility of police corruption, civil servants did nothing.

Minutes from the charity show that in early 2002 the Home Office knew its own researcher was under pressure to stop asking difficult questions, with records stating “The Home Office in London…know that she is being asked to falsify data and has other problems.”

The Home Office though told Rotherham charities and youth workers that the researcher’s work was to be axed and, it can today be revealed, banned them from publishing the provisional abuse inquiries.

From 2003 onwards briefing notes had been prepared for the then Home Secretary David Blunket and the charity was told “The Home Secretary is ready to read what CROP sends.”

In 2004 charity chair of trustees Hilary Willmer met with Sue Jago from the Home Office “in which she promised the Home office would give a high profile to the issues we raised”.

Ms Willmer last night said: “When we found out what was happening to these girls we assumed everyone would be horrified and there would be immediate action. We had to painfully learn that that was not the case, including when we told the Home Office.”

Ms Willmer’s charity revealed a family support worker was appointed but was forced to quit because of “she believes at least one police officer was undermining her work and potentially putting her personally at risk as he/she was being paid by pimps/groomers for information.”

It emerged yesterday that South Yorkshire Police has now referred 14 people to the IPCC watchdog and may make further referrals should the criteria be met. The force said Both South Yorkshire Police and the independent investigation will remain in constant dialogue with the IPCC.

Mr MacShane said he has no memory of the charity rasing concerns with him. He said he was among the first to speak out in 2012 when the claims became public, and said many serving officers will have questions to answer.

“No one ever approached me on this, not a single person came to me as a constituent on child abuse by Asian males. This notion that the whole world knew and there was a cover up is balderdash.”

He added: “The real people who have questions to answer are Rotherham police officers. It happened at a district level and all those who served at a district command from roughly 1999 to 2010 need to exam their records to see what they knew.”

The Home Office did not provide a comment.

Click here for the original article>>> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/exclusive-mp-and-home-office-failed-to-act-on-rotherham-grooming-11-years-ago-1-6913834

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LABOUR IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTION

Our Press release on standing in the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LABOUR IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTION


The English Democrats are pleased and proud to announce that David Allen, who was our candidate in the previous Police Commissioner election, is again standing for us in the coming South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election, triggered by the resignation in disgrace of the previous Labour Police Commissioner, Shaun Wright.

In the last election the English Democrats came second and won the vast majority of Second Preference votes. Given the disgraceful behaviour of the local Labour Party machine in South Yorkshire in covering up Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs and allowing them to operate for years with impunity because of Labour’s politically correct and diversity ideology we aim to win this time. The People of South Yorkshire need and deserve a change from Labour.

David Allen is the challenger to Labour’s corrupt one party state in South Yorkshire and he is the new broom that will sweep clean by remorselessly ordering the hunting down and prosecuting, not only all South Yorkshire’s child rapists gangs, but also all of Labour’s national politicians, councillors, officials, councillors, social workers and police officers who may be guilty of offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in covering up these crimes and for breaches of their public duty to the People of South Yorkshire.

David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate said:- “From day one on the job, if elected, I will be tireless in the pursuit of these criminals and in bringing them to justice. The law should be administered without fear or favour and without ideological bias. The scandal in South Yorkshire has not been only the large number of child rape offences perpetrated by men of Muslim Pakistani origin, but also the deliberate concealment of these offences and failure to do their job of many people being paid handsomely out of the public pocket. Often this failure was motivated mainly by careerist, partisan advantage. Anyone guilty of these offences should not be in any doubt that if I am elected they will be rooted out and their political careers at public expense will be over.”

“As for the “grooming” gangs, they should note that if the court and prison service fails to impose an adequate punishment, then every time the offender re-offends we shall aim to prosecute again until they are sentenced for a sufficient time to make them no longer a risk to the public”

“South Yorkshire Police will also be directed to cease harassing people who are protecting their homes from burglars and will instead be directed to concentrate on prosecuting the burglar rather than the home defender.”

David Allen stood in the 2012 PCC elections for the English Democrats and came in second place: he is a foundry engineer by training and has experience is sales and sales management. David is married with two children and lives in Doncaster.

David says: ”If elected I will remind the police of their oaths to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is essential that they keep the consent of the people and that justice is seen to be done. I will pursue those who have failed in their duty and broken the law within the entire establishment, particularly with regard to vulnerable children.”

David thinks that a truly independent inquiry is needed to establish the performance of the South Yorkshire police, he would bring in an independent force to do so.

It is my belief that prevention is better than cure and that visible police constables are a reassurance to the public and a deterrence to criminals. Crime should be prevented on the street and not reduced with pen and ink.

For any of these things to happen the police must be freed from the tyranny of political correctness. It is a restrictive and disabling doctrine that prevents good men and women from doing their jobs properly. Equal rights not special rights

I promise if elected to listen to the public and try hold the police to account on their behalf, whilst supporting and defending them in their duty too.

Vote David Allen, English Democrats – ”MORE POLICE – catching criminals!”